Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Who in their right minds would use a closed source proprietary language that is locked to Windows from a company that is NOT Microsoft and is on the verge of their next bankruptcy/sale/???

What could delphi possibly every offer that in not in not available in C#??? With C#, at least you have a solid company behind it (Microsoft). Ive seen this so-called Delphi cross platform and it is an utter joke. The dev environment is completely locked to Windows, the apps it generates don't even vaguely resemble a native Mac application. Visual Studio is freaking FREE, yes, FREE, and supported by an actual company like Microsoft.

The company has such a great track record as well, lets see, it was borland, then they had this brilliant idea to throw everything away and wrap everything around QT, then they threw all that away, went bankrupt and became inprise. Then that went bankrupt, assets were bought by code gear, that went bankrupt, assets bought by what embarcadero now. How long until this joke goes bankrupt.

You want cross platform, use something that actually has a standard like C#, C++ or Java.

I guess Delphi is great for maintaining your shareware windows applications you wrote back in 1995.

How about interacting with others, well Delphi is such a joke that it can't even use a C++ library compiled with MSVC, and what 3 people on the planet actually use Delphi, so I guess you could work with them???

Funny how every company I've ever worked for "used to be Borland shop". Think about it.

400 lines of shell script is just absolutely ridiculously long. These shell scripts co-mingle configuration with business logic, a recipe for disaster. I'm not blaming them, they are a product of their time, the 1970's, back when shell scripts were the only option for configuring a system. Before we had a declarative rule based system of configuration. And then hack upon hack upon hack got added to these shell scripts.

Its the same idea as concatenating a bunch of strings together at run-time to create a sql query. Sure, its quick, dirty but is a security disaster (ever hear of SQL injection). As apposed to having some proper stored procedures in the database itself, and only sending and receiving parameters and data from the database.

A tangled maze of shell scripts was perfectly acceptable in the 1970's but we need to move beyond this, we need to move to a grown up rule based system that cleanly separates business logic from configuration parameters.

However, I don't understand the blatant systemd misrepresentation/hatred

About 80% of the hatred comes from the bandwagon effect. I'll bet the vast majority of the haters have no idea who Poettering, only he's some bad guy we have to hate. The other 20% of the hate comes from graybeard sys admins who know the unique file formats of the 1000 different config utilities Linux has traditionally had and are either afraid to learn anything new or afraid that they might not be so indispensable at their jobs.

What systemd does is give a single consistent way of configuring the system. You want security nightmare, how about the 1000's of freaking shell scripts that call each other in a giant mass of spaghetti to configure a traditional Linux system.

One of the great benefits of systemd is that it is written in C and not a giant mess of shell scripts. With C, you actually get COMPILE TIME CHECKING. With these dammed shell scripts, you have no idea if they work up until they run, and you have no idea what execution path they could go through. Shell scripts are fine a glue code for user programs, but give me something with some static checking like C for critical components.

I really miss installing slackware from a 6" tall stack of floppies. Much like the sysv init, floppies are a tried and proven technology and we should accept that CDROMs and God forbid, DVDs are just far too radical of an experiment.

.
We also need trusted technologies like token ring networks. Just look at what kind of radical experimentation is going on with ethernet: they can't even agree what kind of ethernet we should use, should it be 10 base-t, or maybe 100 base-t or how about 1000 base-t, just too radical changes, we need to stick with what is tried and proven for veteran administrators, like token ring.

I was talking about these hybrid (rubber / NOx) vs liquid (kerosene / O2) engines.
I know conventional solid do make more thrust, but are not controllable -- hence they make a good booster but not a main engine.
It would seem like for a main engine, conventional liquid would give the most thrust and the most controllability.

Don't conventional liquid engines give significantly more thrust per weight of propellent. From everything I've read, these hybrid designs are also far less controllable and have all sorts of odd dynamics as the solid propellent burns away.

Is this even true? I did some goggling, and could not find *any* official or otherwise direct statement from PETA.

In any case, I think PETA badly dilutes its message by frequently saying borderline ridiculous statements.

No living being should be subject to the kinds of torture in medical tests, period!.

That begin said, there is no problem with animals and humans cooperating. Camels carry a load, and in return they are fed and cared for. Whats wrong with that. Its called a *symbiotic* relationship in case you forgot sixth grade ecology. If farm animals are well cared for, and killed instantly for meat, well, I guess I'm sort of essentially OK with that.